Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

wolfeye155 · Apr 10, 2003, 10:34 PM

Owners of the 12" and 17" Power Book G4, what's your verdict on the GPU in your new babies?

Any complaints for either system? Vent them hear.

AssassyN · Apr 10, 2003, 10:38 PM

I'm so impressed! I play Quake III on my 23" HD Display pushed by my 17" PB and I honestly forget I'm using a NOTEBOOK computer to do it...it's incredible to me, all the GPU I need.

djjava · Apr 10, 2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by AssassyN:
I'm so impressed! I play Quake III on my 23" HD Display pushed by my 17" PB and I honestly forget I'm using a NOTEBOOK computer to do it...it's incredible to me, all the GPU I need.

i haven't pushed my GPU--i'm not a gamer, and still waiting on a native OSX CAD program.. but everything else is fantastic... never had sucha loaded machine.

melman101 · Apr 10, 2003, 11:29 PM

Played UT on my 12" with screen on my 32" wega. AWESOME, that's all I have to say

Sincerely,
Mel

Now I need bluetooth keyboard and mice

nobitacu · Apr 10, 2003, 11:43 PM

My 17 runs very very nicely in any of the games I've tried so far, I'm very happy. ^_^

Ming

Lateralus · Apr 11, 2003, 12:44 AM

I am still perplexed as to why Apple went with the GeForce4Go on the high-end 17" PBook. The Radeon 9000 offers better image quality in games and in DVD playback, it also consumes less power, and offers an overall more powerful kick than the GF4Go.

pamelah · Apr 11, 2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
I am still perplexed as to why Apple went with the GeForce4Go on the high-end 17" PBook. The Radeon 9000 offers better image quality in games and in DVD playback, it also consumes less power, and offers an overall more powerful kick than the GF4Go.

oh god I'm SOOOO tired of hearing about this!! Did you not read the previous posts???? EVERYONE is happy with their performance! Maybe apple *might* have had the slightest good idea in doing this. Maybe they tried the system with both cards and this was a better match. WHO KNOWS WHO CARES! PEOPLE ARE HAPPY!! PUT THIS TO REST!!!!!!!!

mrmister · Apr 11, 2003, 02:25 AM

"oh god I'm SOOOO tired of hearing about this!! Did you not read the previous posts???? EVERYONE is happy with their performance!"

Use more exlamation points. Please.

Well, I'm curious--they are good questions, and warranted. Is Apple trying to cheap on parts? Do they have any kind of an explanation? Not one that I've heard.

I'm glad that people are happy--but it remains a strange manuever on Apple's part that deserves discussion. Not your shrill ranting.

seanyepez · Apr 11, 2003, 02:33 AM

Apple used the GeForce4 Go because the upcoming PowerBooks will use GeForce FX Go GPU's.

That said, the best chip available right now is the Mobility RADEON 9000. It's more efficient, and it has programmable shaders.

ILoveAztecChick · Apr 11, 2003, 03:07 AM

How is WarCraft 3 running for you guys? On my 17" it skips often at 1440x900 in 32-bit color.

solagratia1600 · Apr 11, 2003, 04:10 AM

seanyepez,

can you explain more about what you wrote, what does the future upgrade video card line has to do with the current 17inch video card choice?

The Mobility Radeon 9000, you said that its more efficient, and has more programmable shaders, can you elaborate on this? I am trying to understand how this relate to 3d applications like Maya or Lightwave usage. Is the Mobility Radeon 9000 currently being used in the TiBook 1ghz?

thanks

Originally posted by seanyepez:
Apple used the GeForce4 Go because the upcoming PowerBooks will use GeForce FX Go GPU's.

That said, the best chip available right now is the Mobility RADEON 9000. It's more efficient, and it has programmable shaders.

RMXO · Apr 11, 2003, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by solagratia1600:
Is the Mobility Radeon 9000 currently being used in the TiBook 1ghz?

thanks

yes it is. if you check the spec at Apple's site then you would see it.

http://www.apple.com/powerbook/index15.html

scroll down to the middle.

AssassyN · Apr 11, 2003, 07:22 AM

Hehe, me & sean had a real deep conversation on whether or not the GeForce4 440 Go was good enough and why Apple decided to do it on a post about a month ago that was like 2 pages long that would fit really nicely here, but I can't seem to be able to find it, lol...sean, if you find it, could you post the link?

porsche993 · Apr 11, 2003, 08:54 AM

Here's my $0.02 on the whole nVidia-ATI deal - being a computer graphics engineer, I think I have some insight

It all boils down to the driver. Apple likely had to write their own ATI driver, since ATI is *really* dragging their feet with good UNIX (in the form of Linux) support. They have some drivers out now, but they're nowhere near the quality of the ATI windows drivers.

nVidia on the other hand has a 1st rate driver base with the detonation unified driver architecture. For those who code regularly, nVidia build Windows, Apple, Linux (x86, x86-64, and IA-64) & FreeBSD out of the same source tree. That's a remarkable achievement, and allows nVidia to cross-QC the same codebase on multiple platforms.

About the only thing more one might ask for is for the driver base to be open-source. However, I understand the need for them to keep their IP internal, and nVidia tends to release driver updates at a resonable pace, so no complaints here.

My guess is that Apple simply prefers not to maintain the driver codebase internally. That's the decision I'd make if I were making the calls.

I'd prefer, however, if Apple would keep up with nVidia's driver updates better. I'm currently trying to track down a bug in glDrawArrays(...) which seems to be present in 10.2.4 & 10.2.5, and Apple's making it *very* hard. The code that demonstrates the bug is not quartz friendly (e.g. uses glX & Motif) and I haven't been able to get Apple's OpenGL Profiler to work with an X program. Heck, I can't even tell what the nVidia rev level is from glxinfo. This is the one area where I'm a little less-than-pleased with Apple's OS-X.

cheers,

sean

workerbee · Apr 11, 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by seanyepez:
Apple used the GeForce4 Go because the upcoming PowerBooks will use GeForce FX Go GPU's.

Care to elaborate a little on this topic? Not so much the because bit as the will use and GF FX bit. Please?

Luca Rescigno · Apr 11, 2003, 01:41 PM

A GeForce FX mobility in the next one? That's a pretty big jump. I think there's at least a possibility of a GeForce 4200 Go sometime before then. But anything is possible.

CaseCom · Apr 11, 2003, 01:55 PM

I'm happy with mine (12-inch PB), except for the occasional dropped frame on full-screen DVD playback.

C'mon Apple, update those drivers!

RooneyX · Apr 11, 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by seanyepez:
Apple used the GeForce4 Go because the upcoming PowerBooks will use GeForce FX Go GPU's.

No use smiling. The 9700 Mobility is faster than the FX Go. ATI beats Nvidia on the desktop and on mobile platforms and progresses quicker too.

Karim · Apr 11, 2003, 02:04 PM

I am OVERjoyed with my 17"!

I use it with a Cinema HD 23" 1920X1200 screen and it drives games very fast at that resolution.

Lt_Core · Apr 11, 2003, 02:18 PM

On most PCs you can tweak the nVidia settings (anti-aliasing, vertical sync, etc.). Is there a way to do this on the new PB 17?

AssassyN, what frame rates are you getting in Quake? Are you running at 1440x900 in Quake?

Lateralus · Apr 11, 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by RooneyX:
No use smiling. The 9700 Mobility is faster than the FX Go. ATI beats Nvidia on the desktop and on mobile platforms and progresses quicker too.

There is no 9700 Mobility, the next gen mobility chip is the 9600 Mobility (And you are right, it is faster than the FX Go ). It will take the place of the 9000 Mobility. ATi also unvelied the 9200 Mobility , which will take the place of the 7500 Mobility . Neither GPU will be available until May as far as I know.

seanyepez · Apr 11, 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Lt_Core:
On most PCs you can tweak the nVidia settings (anti-aliasing, vertical sync, etc.). Is there a way to do this on the new PB 17?

Nope.

exca1ibur · Apr 11, 2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by porsche993:
Here's my $0.02 on the whole nVidia-ATI deal - being a computer graphics engineer, I think I have some insight

It all boils down to the driver. Apple likely had to write their own ATI driver, since ATI is *really* dragging their feet with good UNIX (in the form of Linux) support. They have some drivers out now, but they're nowhere near the quality of the ATI windows drivers.

nVidia on the other hand has a 1st rate driver base with the detonation unified driver architecture. For those who code regularly, nVidia build Windows, Apple, Linux (x86, x86-64, and IA-64) & FreeBSD out of the same source tree. That's a remarkable achievement, and allows nVidia to cross-QC the same codebase on multiple platforms.

About the only thing more one might ask for is for the driver base to be open-source. However, I understand the need for them to keep their IP internal, and nVidia tends to release driver updates at a resonable pace, so no complaints here.

My guess is that Apple simply prefers not to maintain the driver codebase internally. That's the decision I'd make if I were making the calls.

I'd prefer, however, if Apple would keep up with nVidia's driver updates better. I'm currently trying to track down a bug in glDrawArrays(...) which seems to be present in 10.2.4 & 10.2.5, and Apple's making it *very* hard. The code that demonstrates the bug is not quartz friendly (e.g. uses glX & Motif) and I haven't been able to get Apple's OpenGL Profiler to work with an X program. Heck, I can't even tell what the nVidia rev level is from glxinfo. This is the one area where I'm a little less-than-pleased with Apple's OS-X.

cheers,

sean

Actually the ATi guys reply at Xlr8yourmac.com often and they state constantly that they write their own drivers. Apple writes NO ATi drivers for any cards including OEM versions.